User talk:Rebollo fr
Adding Categories I really like how you've started to use the categories! That's awesome. --Lbstone 12:32, 16 December 2005 (EST) Thank you, any ideas are welcome. --Rebollo_fr 18:43, 16 December 2005 Welcome Sysop! Just upgraded you to sysop. This should give you a little more freedom to get things done. Keep up the good work. You're really helping to bring this place alive. --Lbstone 12:48, 6 March 2006 (EST) Copying over from en-Wikipedia Hi; I've a hunch you, as somebody who's experienced and active, are the right person I should direct to the newly (and hugely) augmented Talk:MPP. If I've done something wrong, tell me straight (I'm not thin-skinned). Thanks. -- Hoary 06:34, 8 May 2006 (EDT) : Hi, I have answered you in the corresponding talk page. --Rebollo fr 15:51, 8 May 2006 (EDT) A link Top-Link for old-camera specialized camerapedian: http://auction-team.de/new_highlights/nh_ph_03_2006.htm Added by U.Kulick on May 29, 2006. Paging Mr Sysop! Bonjour Monsieur Administrateur! Please use your experience, wisdom and superpowers to do either one of these: * Delete Category:RINGFOTO products branded Voigtländer (see its talk page) * Ban me for impudently creating Category:Voigtländer-brand Ringfoto products in its place and generally wasting your time. Merci mille fois -- un rosbif :One of the above links has turned red, guess which one! --Rebollo fr 15:35, 31 May 2006 (EDT) Superbly interesting! Poor old Canon doesn't get a single "superb"; Voigtländer ensures that it will always have at least one. As I wrote in email a couple of days back (check your spambox), the prospect of emailing all those megabytes was just too depressing, so I popped them all in the post perhaps nine hours ago. -- Hoary 18:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT) Those interesting links that you see and we normals don't Well done, Rebollo "Terminator" fr! A different matter: Jeez, the categories here are a mess, aren't they? But before I continue, are the changes to Canon T-60 and those to Yallu Flex OK? -- Hoary 07:05, 6 June 2006 (EDT) :Yes, they seem pretty reasonable. --Rebollo fr 07:14, 6 June 2006 (EDT) I emailed you a few seconds ago -- Hoary 11:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT) Categorizing Thank you for your work categorizing . . . but really, you don't have to bother. That was and is on my (unwritten) "todo" list. You've already done so much work on images, templates, etc. If you have any spare energy, write up yet another obscure camera! OtOH if you really like catting, then you could do worse than have a look at the Minolta SLRs. I know there are two very different mounts (cf Canon), but I forget what the earlier one is called, while the latter one seems to be called "A" in the Youess but "α" in Japan. I do know which camera has which mount, so I can categorize them (the boring part) -- but I don't know what to call the cats. As for the Koni-Omega, Mamiya 7, etc., they're not so numerous. Category: Japanese 6x7 - 6x9 (which I wouldn't subcategorize) is an awkward name but I think a handy concept. Comments? -- Hoary 11:44, 12 June 2006 (EDT) :I was just wanting to make the Zeitax page good to the last category! I am OK for the category you are proposing. Of course you are not thinking to include the 6.5×9 plate cameras in it? --Rebollo fr 11:48, 12 June 2006 (EDT) ::No I'm not, don't worry. ::An even more awkwardly titled but a convenient additional category would be something like Category:Japanese cameras for paper-backed rollfilm narrower than 127, which would include those taking "Boltax" film, the Konilette, etc. Uh-oh, perhaps that should be Category:Japanese cameras for paper-backed rollfilm narrower than 127 (apart from subminiatures). Plus Category:Japanese subminiature cameras (apart from half-frame 35mm). Oh, and there's also Category:Japanese cameras for regular 35mm film with frame width intermediate between 18mm and 35mm. Aaaaaaaarrrgghhhh! -- Hoary 21:57, 12 June 2006 (EDT) :::Huh, I hope these links won't turn blue! :::I think that the "Japanese something" categories must reflect somewhat the wider category system. Maybe a Category: 6x7–6x9 could be useful, instead of Category:6x7, Category:6x8 and Category:6x9. Maybe we could also extend it to 6x10 (Category:6x7–6x10) to cope with the Plaubel Veriwide 100. :::The current Category:Subminiature does not contain the half frame cameras (and I think it's good). We can create Category:Japanese subminiature as well. By contrast, I don't think a category for 24×32 or 24×34 would be useful, and I would leave these cameras in the corresponding 35mm category. And for the Boltax size and other plain weird size cameras, we will wait for some devoted fellow to write at least one article about one such model, then let him torture his brain to find an appropriate category title: maybe Category:Japanese cameras for miscellaneous film, where they would happily join the Disc cameras and other insanities. :::Incidentally, a ndash "–" character in the category title seems to work as expected. If you want to have real fun with the categories, you can consider replacing Category:4.5x6 by Category:4.5×6 and do the same with all the others. (This is a joke, don't even think of wasting that amount of time! We will do this when we master the bots.) --Rebollo fr 02:31, 13 June 2006 (EDT) ::::I don't object to any of that, with one exception. Maybe a Category: 6x7–6x9 could be useful, instead of Category:6x7, Category:6x8 and Category:6x9. Maybe we could also extend it to 6x10 (Category:6x7–6x10) to cope with the Plaubel Veriwide 100. I thought of that, but it doesn't seem a good idea to me. The Veriwide was sold as a very wide angle camera (even though it doesn't seem so these days). 6x9 was the standard size; anything even slightly wider seems to me to belong more with 6x12, 6x17, etc than to 6x9. Further, although there haven't been many Japanese 6x9 cameras, there have been so many non-Japanese ones that 6x7 and 6x8 (classed together) might be usefully separated from 6x9. -- Hoary 02:44, 13 June 2006 (EDT) :::::It is true that the Veriwide 100 was sold as a wideangle camera (like the Hasselblad SWC for example), but it was not sold as a panorama camera (like the Linhof Technorama and other starting with 6x12 format). It would be strange to separate it from the Proshift 69 just for one centimeter. :::::It is also true that there were many 6x9 cameras, but the biggest lot are folders that would go in Category:6x9 folding. The cameras that would be interesting to group together would be the 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders (not folding). For example we can have: :::::Category: 6x7–6x10, containing Category: 6x7–6x9 rangefinder (itself containing Category: 6x9 rangefinder folding), a Category: 6x9 folding and a Category: 6x7–6x10 viewfinder for the Veriwide, the Alsaflex Cyclope, the Royer Altessa and other weird cameras. By the way, there is a problem with the use of the word 'viewfinder' in the current category scheme: today it is used only in the sense of 'viewfinder rigid body'. You are probably right in saying that we need to put all the viewfinder folders in 'viewfinder folding' categories, themselves subcategories of the 'viewfinder' ones. --Rebollo fr 03:22, 13 June 2006 (EDT) Older Japanese script Rebello fr, how odd it is that you're suddenly, today (and not, say, yesterday) making such elaborations as "東京寫眞商會 in the old writing, 東京写真商会 in today's writing".... Some time ago, I thought of doing the same myself, but abandoned the idea. It's admirably didactic and precise, and may conceivably add to the exotic ambience of the article, but I really can't see much use for it. People who know about kanji will anyway know that 寫眞商會 back then would now be 写真商会 and that 写真商会 now would have been 寫眞商會 back then; people who don't know about kanji won't know and are unlikely to be interested. Providing this kind of information (?) in a few articles would be OK, but to be consistent one would end up doing it in thousands, to little or no benefit that I can think of. Canon does continue to use rather antique katakana style, which is something that somebody who knows a bit about Japanese script would understand but would not be able to predict. I think it's worth noting. But 寫眞, etc.: I think not. Not that I want to dampen your spirits at all. . . . -- Hoary 07:00, 20 June 2006 (EDT) :Yes I agree that if I begin to put this in each and every article about pre-WWII Japanese cameras, the result would be tedious. :However I am not this confident that any person able to read 写真 is able to recognize the old form, it is not the kind of thing that you learn in JAP 101. Even the mere existence of old forms is something that many people don't know. :When I'm describing the contents of an ad, I'd rather respect the original writing. I want to avoid people challenging what is written because "what's written on the ad is obviously not what you're saying in the page", something that could happen especially with the ads visible on the Web. :I'll try to make a page explaining the most commonly encountered old writings, for example Sources: Old Japanese writing or Sources: Old kanji characters. In the article, we would have "東京寫眞商會 in old writing" or "東京寫眞商會 with old kanji characters". :--Rebollo fr 07:22, 20 June 2006 (EDT) OK! (Irrelevantly, spot the moron and block his edits.) Hoary 08:58, 20 June 2006 (EDT) REF tag Working Now I just upgraded the wiki software and installed the Cite.php extension. So you should be able to use the REF tag now. I just tested this in the sandbox and it seemed to work just fine. --Lbstone 20:34, 22 June 2006 (EDT) :Great! Thank you for the software update. With 1.6, we have access to other new features as well, such as default parameters for the templates, that could help to make an usable Template: Camera. --Rebollo fr 07:27, 23 June 2006 (EDT) Hi Just Hi. The thing 10:30, 8 July 2006 (EDT) :If you want to go on another wiki, you can go here. The thing 10:37, 8 July 2006 (EDT) Re: Copyrights Hello, I'm very sorry about that, I'm new to this, and don't know much at all about copyright. That's fine that you have deleted it, I just don't really know enough about white balance, apart from that it is important when taking photos. Thanks. Added by Onearmedscissor on July 19, 2006. Open wide while I pull the chain! -- Hoary 00:36, 28 July 2006 (EDT) Silly Distinguished names How's this? I want one or two more subcats that will collect Frank, Carl, Oscar, Doris, Eliza, et al., but haven't decided the best titles and anyway thought I might get your input first. -- Hoary 02:49, 3 August 2006 (EDT) :That's fun, and gives the reader readymade collector themes... But where will you put the Luck, Semi Lucky and Semi Blond? --Rebollo fr 04:05, 3 August 2006 (EDT) ::I've already thought of adjectives, which would link Lucky, Proud, and others. But "Adjectives" would be a very boring title. Better wait at least until a more appealing title comes to mind. -- Hoary 04:19, 3 August 2006 (EDT) :::OK, I'll be away for a few days anyway. --Rebollo fr 04:27, 3 August 2006 (EDT) inspired by SIAP They say "fnac" even though phonology texts are likely to assert that they can't say it. I've been amused to be given lists of made-up words by students of phonology for whom English is not a first language and who are thus using me as a native informant. Of course some words, like "gtak", are impossible (unless they get an extra vowel of course). But I happily say all sorts of words with sound-combinations that aren't in English or either of the two other languages I kind-of speak. "But you're not supposed to be able to say that!" Back to "ICA". It's so short that it looks as if it could be pronounced (in English) "eye-see-aye". How is it normally pronounced? If "eye-see-aye" is common, leave it; if it's rare (and the pronunciation is typically disyllabic, not trisyllabic), then it's better changed. It's not a name that I've ever heard in conversation, so I really don't know. -- Hoary 10:54, 3 September 2006 (EDT) :The only way I've ever heard "ICA" being pronounced was as "ee-tsee-aah". This would be the normal pronunciation in German. This resembles the way "IHG" was changed to "Ihagee". "Agfa" would be another case, as you already pointed out. --driesvandenelzen 13:37, 3 September 2006 (EDT) ::I didn't know that and spontaneously pronounce "Ica", maybe influenced by the "Icarette" model name. But I trust you and won't bother you with this. Better, I'll correct my own "Ica" links. --Rebollo fr 15:20, 3 September 2006 (EDT) Got your email. Just wanted you to know that I got your emails. Will respond as soon as I can. I'll see if I can do the things you asked for. (Things have been really busy with my day job lately, so I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.) --Lbstone 13:42, 31 October 2006 (EST) :Thank you. Of course there is no real hurry. --Rebollo fr 14:19, 31 October 2006 (EST) Email might be dodgy for the next few days (though check yours!), so: see what a Mycro can do. G'night! -- Hoary 10:43, 30 December 2006 (EST) Authorities, SGML, and commas Only one surviving example of this model has been observed so far / Who says there's only one? / Rebollo_fr has seen only one :Ah, implying "by the creators of CP". Sorry, I misread that as meaning "within some longterm, major enterprise known to many people". For example, like Dechert's project on Canon cameras: years before the book was published, he would have ensured that people interested in Canon knew about it and would have reported rare cameras to him. I'm not complaining here, just pointing out that there's a possibility of misinterpretation. I'll try to think of better wording. :Careful: "--" shouldn't go inside an SGML comment, if I remember right. As you'll have noticed, I've been converting "xyz," to "xyz,". This has nothing whatever to do with odd US "stylistic" preferences; it's because (i) italicized commas look just about the same as non-italicized commas (at least in the screen fonts I use), and (ii) with the comma immediately after the italics-off switch, Mediawiki software can put a line break between the two: xyz , (which I think is a bit unsightly). -- Hoary 18:50, 22 January 2007 (EST) :I agree about all that you say, except perhaps the minor point about "--" in an SGML comment: see the source of this page. --Rebollo fr 14:11, 23 January 2007 (EST) Woah, strange. Yes, I know, your comment works. I can see it in the Mediawiki source when I edit section. But when I use the "view source" option in my browser to look at the edited page (the one for regular display, not the editable page), I see nothing at all! So I understand Mediawiki even less than I'd realized. Meanwhile, today's leisure reading. -- Hoary 20:17, 23 January 2007 (EST) Big box Psst, please check your mail, reply (remembering that my mail address has changed in the last couple of months) and delete this. Thanks! -- Hoary 07:23, 24 February 2007 (EST)